Grant stops booth

Why is this going to prevent the people who OTL wrote the history books of both Reconstruction and the ACW in a South-tilted light from messing things up?

Many of the history books were written much later. A living Lincoln acts as a counterweight to the Radical Republicans, who will still get some measures passed but perhaps only in the most recalcitrant areas of the South. States admitted prior to the end of Lincoln's term will largely be able to rebuild without as much interference, the military districts for parts of the Deep South will be a tougher job though.

Not unless the Southerners who rejected the very concept of being "reconstructed" are somehow dealt with, which 'the lightest touch possible" won't do.

After the war there were a lot of people just trying to survive and get along, racism is not going away overnight but without as many of the feelings of carpetbaggers and scalawags as noted in OTL there is likely less resentment and a less passionate defense of the "old ways". Sure there will still be defenders of the antebellum social hierarchy but if more of the policies from Reconstruction can hold then there is a chance for the area to become more prosperous into the late 19th/early 20th century. Keeping the Radical Republicans in check should make it easier to give the Republicans a chance at some of the voters in those states, especially in the less devastated areas.
 
Many of the history books were written much later. A living Lincoln acts as a counterweight to the Radical Republicans, who will still get some measures passed but perhaps only in the most recalcitrant areas of the South. States admitted prior to the end of Lincoln's term will largely be able to rebuild without as much interference, the military districts for parts of the Deep South will be a tougher job though.

My understanding was that previous to the 1960s there were no existent histories of Reconstruction written by any historians of any note who were NOT Southerners. Even military histories written of just the American Civil War tended to be tilted very Southern until the lessons of WWI trench warfare proved that General Ulysses S. Grant wasn't quite the butcher that so many considered him to be.

I remember a history of the Overland Campaign written in 1914 sitting in my local public library. The author, a Southern history professor, had been a private in Lee's army in the last year of the war. The book was loaded with ceaseless prejudicial attacks on Grant's "total lack of generalship".:rolleyes: Since this book was written and published BEFORE World War One, and was some seventy years old, I took it to the head librarian and suggested she dispose of it, on the grounds that it (like a seventy year old encyclopedia) constituted a menace to education.:mad:
 
I remember a history of the Overland Campaign written in 1914 sitting in my local public library. The author, a Southern history professor, had been a private in Lee's army in the last year of the war. The book was loaded with ceaseless prejudicial attacks on Grant's "total lack of generalship".:rolleyes: Since this book was written and published BEFORE World War One, and was some seventy years old, I took it to the head librarian and suggested she dispose of it, on the grounds that it (like a seventy year old encyclopedia) constituted a menace to education.:mad:

Even if it is an old and biased piece of crap book, isn't it still something we should keep for future generations to learn bias from the losing side, or simply because of its age and value?
 
Woodrow Wilson strikes again

Even if it is an old and biased piece of crap book, isn't it still something we should keep for future generations to learn bias from the losing side, or simply because of its age and value?

I thought of that even at the time. But this was a public library in a small town, where the book could be picked off the shelf to pollute young minds. I agree that in a university library, as a source serving in a small part of the role of a "history of histories", yes. But I'd make it a reference work specifically noted that it was not to be used as a Civil War history, but as an indication of the very long corrosive effects of the Lost Causer Myth, and where it was coming from (i.e., even the most "serious" works of Reconstruction/Civil War history for generations). After all, when he saw the film, President Woodrow Wilson called "Birth of a Nation/The Klansman" the most accurate telling of Reconstruction he'd ever encountered.:mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
The divergence definitely is not an ASB theory - I believe Jean Edward Smith's bio of Grant mentioned his intention to attend the performance. Mrs. Grant, I believe, had a last minute scheduling conflict that prompted a change in plans.
 
The divergence definitely is not an ASB theory - I believe Jean Edward Smith's bio of Grant mentioned his intention to attend the performance. Mrs. Grant, I believe, had a last minute scheduling conflict that prompted a change in plans.

The version I heard said that Mrs. Grant hated Mary Todd Lincoln, and refused to go.
So Grant didn't go.
 
Even if it is an old and biased piece of crap book, isn't it still something we should keep for future generations to learn bias from the losing side, or simply because of its age and value?
The better principle would be to buy a more up-to-date book(say, Battle Cry of Freedom) and maybe a book specifically on the historiography of the Civil War, so people have both access to updated histories and can benefit from learning about the ways in which our understanding of the Civil War have changed. Although if it's from 1914 there's a chance of some sort that it would be better placed in the rare books and manuscripts section of the library(if it has one) depending on the book itself.
 
The version I heard said that Mrs. Grant hated Mary Todd Lincoln, and refused to go. So Grant didn't go.

The admiration was mutual.:rolleyes: Mary Todd got it into her head that Grant was running for President in 1864! Now, she had brain cancer. I don't know what the negationist historians who support that fairy tale have as an excuse.:D Mrs. Grant was in fact quite content to wait until 1868 to move into the White House (her husband was only 41 at the start of the Overland Campaign, after all).

The better principle would be to buy a more up-to-date book (say, Battle Cry of Freedom (1)) and maybe a book specifically on the historiography of the Civil War, (2) so people have both access to updated histories and can benefit from learning about the ways in which our understanding of the Civil War have changed. Although if it's from 1914 there's a chance of some sort that it would be better placed in the rare books and manuscripts section of the library (3) (if it has one (4)) depending on the book itself.

1) That book didn't even exist at the time I was bringing that old 1914 work to the librarian, but you're quite right. I'm sure that they must have had Bruce Catton available, but that wasn't specifically about Grant's Virginia campaigns.

2) Quite beyond the scope of this little library

3) Technically, at the time (70s/80s) it wouldn't have been all that old. It was what was IN the book that was "old".

4) They didn't, just a basement for old books no longer in circulation. They tended to succumb to mold, paper mites, and even silverfish.
 
Many of the history books were written much later. A living Lincoln acts as a counterweight to the Radical Republicans, who will still get some measures passed but perhaps only in the most recalcitrant areas of the South. States admitted prior to the end of Lincoln's term will largely be able to rebuild without as much interference, the military districts for parts of the Deep South will be a tougher job though.

Many of the history books were written by the likes of Jubal Early.

And what "interference"? Interference with the rejection of the 13th and 14th amendments being law, or some other interference that has been so grossly exaggerated that doing nothing at all would still be seen as oppressing the South?

When we have multiple Confederate generals serving in Congress (John Brown Gordon of Georgia; Rooney Lee and Joe Johnston of Virginia, John Tyler Morgan of Alabama; Joseph Wheeler, presumably from in Alabama at the time, Edward Cary Walthall of Mississippi - to name the ones that a brief search of Generals in Gray mentions), the idea that Reconstruction was "hard" on the South is obviously not about the Southerners who fought in gray.

This isn't even counting state office (or positions outside congress) or those with no interest in politics but who prospered.

And we're not looking at "scalawags" like Longstreet either.

If the Radical Republicans were half as hostile to the South as they're painted, none of these men would have been eligible to do so much as vote, let alone run and serve.

But by and large, the average surviving Confederate general probably did better than the average member of the population. And while that's hardly "unfair" necessarily - these were often talented men - it certainly isn't a result of too severe a policy of Reconstruction.

After the war there were a lot of people just trying to survive and get along, racism is not going away overnight but without as many of the feelings of carpetbaggers and scalawags as noted in OTL there is likely less resentment and a less passionate defense of the "old ways". Sure there will still be defenders of the antebellum social hierarchy but if more of the policies from Reconstruction can hold then there is a chance for the area to become more prosperous into the late 19th/early 20th century. Keeping the Radical Republicans in check should make it easier to give the Republicans a chance at some of the voters in those states, especially in the less devastated areas.
The only way the policies of Reconstruction can hold is more pressure, not less, on the South. "Keeping the radical Republicans" in check isn't the issue, the issue is the people who didn't care about "just trying to survive and get along" refusing to accept that the CSA had lost.
 
I think Lincoln would be at greater risk for PTSD. I know he's been shot at before, but I think this is the only time his shooter was near enough that Lincoln would have seen him if he'd have turned around. Also, I'm not convinced Lincoln would survive all the way through his second term, as he may have had neoplasia.
 
The divergence definitely is not an ASB theory - I believe Jean Edward Smith's bio of Grant mentioned his intention to attend the performance. Mrs. Grant, I believe, had a last minute scheduling conflict that prompted a change in plans.
that is one of the best godddamn biographies that i have ever read.
 
Honestly with Grant there Booth wouldn't even get to the door. Grants not the type to put up with the lax security standards Lincoln put up with and would at least ensure that there where two bodyguards at rotating so as to ensure idiocy like what happened in OTL doesn't happen here.
 
Abraham Lincoln lives to administrate reconstruction.

This is gonna be huge. The policies of Malice toward none and charlity toward all very likely result in a farm more limited amount of carpetbaggers as President LIncoln would very much frown o nthe naked exploitation of the SOuth.

His priority would be on the recconciliation of the nation and not so much on the retribution that Vice President Johnson was so keen on.

This is going to change things as one of president lincoln's goals would be HELPING the southron states be knit back into the nation's fabric and NOT on nursing grudges and punishing people and punitive retribution. He also would have four more years at least to make the 13th and fourtheenth amendments stick.

Grant as well would probably be brought on board and the BOsse Comutates act either would not go through or would go through i na different form.

Their would be a delicate balence between liberating former slaves AND 'dominating' the conquered south.

I think this would make it much harder to sell the 'lost cause' myth han it was OTL.

You know I want to visit the alternate world you live in where reconstruction was harsh. Because it sounds better than the return to the closest thing to status quo ante bellum we got in real life.
 
Honestly with Grant there Booth wouldn't even get to the door. Grants not the type to put up with the lax security standards Lincoln put up with and would at least ensure that there where two bodyguards at rotating so as to ensure idiocy like what happened in OTL doesn't happen here.

I'd quite forgotten. :eek: Grant most certainly would have had a full military escort. The USA didn't finally start taking Presidential security seriously until Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to assassinate Truman during one of his daily walks!
 
Many of the history books were written by the likes of Jubal Early.

And what "interference"? Interference with the rejection of the 13th and 14th amendments being law, or some other interference that has been so grossly exaggerated that doing nothing at all would still be seen as oppressing the South?

Stripping reconstructed states of their governments and putting them under military occupation for over a decade for starters. Lots of people came home to destroyed homes, occupation, looting, and in some cases worse.

When we have multiple Confederate generals serving in Congress... this isn't even counting state office (or positions outside congress) or those with no interest in politics but who prospered.

Again, state offices are not going to come back in some areas for another decade. And sometimes the price of democracy is dealing with someone else's elected officials that you do not like. Try lobbying them in DC...

If the Radical Republicans were half as hostile to the South as they're painted, none of these men would have been eligible to do so much as vote, let alone run and serve.

OTL they were stopped from some of their worst excesses though their proposals certainly went far enough, they nearly managed to oust Johnson for heaven's sakes. A living Lincoln will have a much lighter hand, and as Germany taught us in OTL via the Marshall Plan having a helping hand during a rebuilding process can turn a former enemy into a helpful partner.

But by and large, the average surviving Confederate general probably did better than the average member of the population. And while that's hardly "unfair" necessarily - these were often talented men - it certainly isn't a result of too severe a policy of Reconstruction.

Talent often thrives even in adversity. Many of these guys had resources and the brains to make the best out of what was given to them, they also had local respect and became the local leaders who could capitalize on whatever came their way.

The only way the policies of Reconstruction can hold is more pressure, not less, on the South. "Keeping the radical Republicans" in check isn't the issue, the issue is the people who didn't care about "just trying to survive and get along" refusing to accept that the CSA had lost.

I disagree, the better way to have done so would be to allow states to rebuild via a Lincoln model with less pressure and find a way to greatly increase black participation in politics. The harder you push the more resistance you will have. Things will take generations to change regardless of circumstances, but I think using a lighter touch in 1865-1868 it may take 2 generations instead of 4 to get closer to a Civil Rights Act like 1964.
 
Stripping reconstructed states of their governments and putting them under military occupation for over a decade for starters. Lots of people came home to destroyed homes, occupation, looting, and in some cases worse.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reconstruction/plantation/sf_myths.html#a

In brief: "What military occupation?"

And destroyed homes, looting etc. is a product of the ACW's less nice side and the chaotic aftermath of such a thing, not Reconstruction policies.

Again, state offices are not going to come back in some areas for another decade. And sometimes the price of democracy is dealing with someone else's elected officials that you do not like. Try lobbying them in DC...
"By mid-1868, Congress readmitted representatives from six states, and then the remainder complied with the act's terms and were readmitted in 1870."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Readmission+of+states

Five years until the last are readmitted to Congress. Five years. After a brutal, emotional, extreme civil war.

I'd have to check on state houses, but I would wager they came back at the same time if not sooner.
OTL they were stopped from some of their worst excesses though their proposals certainly went far enough, they nearly managed to oust Johnson for heaven's sakes. A living Lincoln will have a much lighter hand, and as Germany taught us in OTL via the Marshall Plan having a helping hand during a rebuilding process can turn a former enemy into a helpful partner.
OTL their "worst excesses" are myths. And nearly ousting Johnson - that's the worst you can think of?

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/pfc01

Obviously we'd have to check the other ten states to see how they compare to Texas, but it's rather interesting to compare the myth to the reality even in just this one case

Talent often thrives even in adversity. Many of these guys had resources and the brains to make the best out of what was given to them, they also had local respect and became the local leaders who could capitalize on whatever came their way.
But that they were free men, able to go about their lives and flounder or prosper by their own efforts, and in multiple cases achieve national office is hardly the result of the grinding hand of Radical Republican oppression.

The bare minimum that kind the of oppressive Reconstruction so often talked about and so little supported would be to see these men stripped of their rights as citizens and/or imprisoned. Not governors, senators, representatives, owners of railroads, and other occupations far from the bottom of the social or economic totem pole.

Yet, if I was to pick a Confederate general at random, I would bet you that the only ones who ended in poverty were those who "failed at business" or occasionally at farming - very occasionally.


http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entry.php?rec=1112

Now, Confederates were disenfranchised briefly in Tennessee - but that was by a Tennessee measure, not Stevens and his peers oppressing the poor South from Washington.

I disagree, the better way to have done so would be to allow states to rebuild via a Lincoln model with less pressure and find a way to greatly increase black participation in politics. The harder you push the more resistance you will have. Things will take generations to change regardless of circumstances, but I think using a lighter touch in 1865-1868 it may take 2 generations instead of 4 to get closer to a Civil Rights Act like 1964.
Except that the only way you're getting greater black participation in politics is stepping hard on the elements of the South that fought bloodily after the war to render blacks exercising their rights as citizens a short way to trouble - or even death.

You are not getting it by basically saying that the South is free to exclude them without even token efforts at interference.


And in this interests of discussion, I'm going to request that if you dispute any of the sources I have linked that you provide some of your own to read in response.
 
Last edited:
Top